[Psudo]

I came across a story arguing that Canada's domestic politics are hurting their ability to help Afghanistan rebuild. Since I know pretty much nothing on the topic, I wanted to see what your takes would be.

Victim of bureaucratic jealousy wrote:

Canada shows us a brilliant example of how bureaucratic turf wars on the homefront can negatively impact the war effort: Due to interdepartmental jealousies, the Department of National Defence has decided to disband the Strategic Advisory Team-Afghanistan. Since 2005 this unique Canadian Forces initiative — outside of the jurisdiction of ISAF or OEF — has garnered positive results and generally positive reviews from all except the (troubled) Foreign Affairs and the Canadian International Development Agency.
[. . .]
This is a step back in getting Afghanistan on its feet, if simply for the loss of positive momentum already garnered by SAT-A.

So, Canadians, what think ye of this foreigner's interpretation of your domestic politics?

[Prestwick]

Every NATO nation that chooses to fight a war on a peacetime budget has the same nightmares. In the UK, they're now pulling Seaking helicopters off of Air Sea Rescue duty to send to Helmand province because there is too much infighting between the MoD and the Treasury to agree on quick buying new ones.

Interestingly, the Economist last week published an article praising the outgoing chief of the defence staff, General Rick Hillier.

http://www.economist.com/world/americas ... d=11791604

The problem is that now Canada is having to contribute serious resources to a very, very real war, they are starting to suffer the same problems as the UK is in terms of lack of funding, equipment and overstretch.

[CanadianJeff]

I think Prestwick about covered it. It's really like the war doesn't exsist up here. It's a war sure and personally I have mixed feelings on it (it feels to much to me like were cleaning up a Bush mess rather then peacekeeping) but all in all it almost feels like there is no war at all.

It's like everyone knows theres a war but the word is simply mum until someone dies or there's a major breakthrough. The media just kind of stopped printing on it after a year or so. I guess debating gay marriage now falls into the more important spectrum in our lives then a war. Which honestly I'm not sure is a good thing or a bad thing.

[Prestwick]

History I feel is repeating itself. You go back a century and a half to Britain and the Indian Mutiny for example and while British forces were engaged in large scale conventional battles which were very violent and bloody, the public back home never really felt that there was a war on at all.

I can't really explain it and I'm not sure if that was the best way of explaining it

[Eisensapper]

Foreign add problems with plague Afghanistan for years to come, since they dont have much of an economy to speak of. When aid gets on the ground distribution is another problem since the only major outlet for it are the district centers. The small outlying villages have no clean running water, electricity or money to improve their quality of life. The roads into these areas are dangerous and can possibly have IEDs on them, not to mention that if you take foreign aid you are making yourself a target for the Taliban.

On the subject of peacekeeping though, Afghanistan is NOT a peacekeeping mission. Canada has pulled away from that stereotype and the CF is not a peacekeeping force anymore. It is a war.

[Prestwick]

Not to go completely hyperbole, this is more of one of those classic low intensity conflicts that the UK and Commonwealth always seemed to be engaged in during the 1950s and 60s. Like the 'Confrontation' in Malaya and Britain in Aden, Yemen and Oman.